MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Stability and transferability of broadly trained phenology models in a changing climate

2025· article· en· W4411195450 on OpenAlexaff
Lynsay Spafford, J. Jelle Lever, Arthur Geßler, Roman Zweifel, Barbara Pietragalla, Jan Dirk Wegner, Vivien Sainte Fare Garnot, Christian Sigg, Yann Vitasse

Bibliographic record

VenueAgricultural and Forest Meteorology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransferabilityPhenologyBiometeorologyClimate changeClimatologyEnvironmental scienceStability (learning theory)GeographyMeteorologyComputer scienceEcologyMachine learningBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A variety of phenology process-based models have been developed to simulate environmental influences on the timing of spring and autumn phenophases. Similar performances between different types of mechanistic models have raised questions about reliability of their predictions. To assess the biological relevance of phenology models, we used a seven-decade dataset of five species across 170 sites and 1700 m elevation in Switzerland. We evaluated nine leaf emergence and ten senescence models over time and space. We explored how optimal parameter values and influences vary, reflecting transitions in model aptitude and phenology responses to drivers. Leaf emergence models showed improved predictions at external sites over time, while emergence dates converged across Switzerland. In contrast, leaf senescence models often failed to outperform the null model predicting the mean date of training data and showed divergent performance trends. Trends in optimal parameters indicated species-specific responses to emergence drivers, with cold-climate suited species favouring earlier thresholds for warmth accumulation in spring, while the trends were opposite for warm-climate suited species, except for beech showing stable parameters likely due to strong photoperiod constraints. Warming increased the importance of chilling-related parameters for leaf emergence, while senescence parameter sensitivities remained stable. Spatial analyses revealed that complex models were less robust to training and validation at different elevations than simple models, and that phenological responses may vary non-linearly with elevation, likely due to local adaptations. Senescence models performed better with validation at high elevations, where climatic variables such as cooling temperatures play a large role, while predictions were more challenging at other elevations. These findings highlight the need for further refinement of process-based models to account for all driving influences on plant phenology, particularly for leaf senescence models. Our work demonstrates the potential for process-based modelling techniques to better understand phenology responses to climate change.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgricultural and Forest MeteorologySame topicRemote Sensing in AgricultureFrench-language works237,207